Brown v. County of Jefferson et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION - After review, the Court agrees that Mr. Brown's federal habeas petition is time-barred. The Court notes that Mr. Brown is parole-eligible on his sentence for Count One, (Doc. 5 -4), so Mr. Brown should review the procedures and deadlines for parole consideration. By separate order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice, and the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/25/2020. (KEK)
FILED
2020 Sep-25 AM 11:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GRADY BROWN,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-01222-MHH-GMB
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 14, 2020, the magistrate judge appointed to this case entered a report
in which he recommended that the Court deny petitioner Grady Brown’s request for
federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Brown filed
his petition after the one-year deadline for the petition expired. (Doc. 10). Judge
Borden also recommended against a certificate of appealability.
(Doc. 10).
Although the parties were advised of their right to file written objections within 14
days, the Court has not received objections.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3)
(“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.”). Although § 636(b)(1) “does not require the [district] judge to
review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review
by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any
other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985).
After review, the Court agrees that Mr. Brown’s federal habeas petition is
time-barred. The Court notes that Mr. Brown is parole-eligible on his sentence for
Count One, (Doc. 5-4), so Mr. Brown should review the procedures and deadlines
for parole consideration. By separate order, the Court will dismiss this action with
prejudice, and the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
DONE and ORDERED this September 25, 2020.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?